Channel partitioning for wireless local area networks

ABSTRACT

The present application discloses, inter alia, a system for improving the aggregate throughput of a wireless local area network which includes: at least one access point that is equipped with at least one transceiver configured to simultaneously transmit and receive at multiple frequencies using multiple channels; and the access point being configured to acquire channel conditions of users and to pool sets of users on the channels based on the channel conditions.

The present application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 to U.S.provisional application Ser. No. 60/649,760 entitled Optimal ChannelAssignment For Multi-Class, Multi-Channel Wireless Lans And The Like,the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.

BACKGROUND

1. Field of the Invention

The present application relates to wireless communications, and somepreferred embodiments relate more specifically to systems and methodsfor maximizing aggregate system throughput and performance of a wirelesslocal area network (WLAN).

2. General Background Discussion

Networks and Internet Protocol

There are many types of computer networks, with the Internet having themost notoriety. The Internet is a worldwide network of computernetworks. Today, the Internet is a public and self-sustaining networkthat is available to many millions of users. The Internet uses a set ofcommunication protocols called TCP/IP (i.e., Transmission ControlProtocol/Internet Protocol) to connect hosts. The Internet has acommunications infrastructure known as the Internet backbone. Access tothe Internet backbone is largely controlled by Internet ServiceProviders (ISPs) that resell access to corporations and individuals.

With respect to IP (Internet Protocol), this is a protocol by which datacan be sent from one device (e.g., a phone, a PDA [Personal DigitalAssistant], a computer, etc.) to another device on a network. There area variety of versions of IP today, including, e.g., IPv4, IPv6, etc.Each host device on the network has at least one IP address that is itsown unique identifier.

IP is a connectionless protocol. The connection between end pointsduring a communication is not continuous. When a user sends or receivesdata or messages, the data or messages are divided into components knownas packets. Every packet is treated as an independent unit of data.

In order to standardize the transmission between points over theInternet or the like networks, an OSI (Open Systems Interconnection)model was established. The OSI model separates the communicationsprocesses between two points in a network into seven stacked layers,with each layer adding its own set of functions. Each device handles amessage so that there is a downward flow through each layer at a sendingend point and an upward flow through the layers at a receiving endpoint. The programming and/or hardware that provides the seven layers offunction is typically a combination of device operating systems,application software, TCP/IP and/or other transport and networkprotocols, and other software and hardware.

Typically, the top four layers are used when a message passes from or toa user and the bottom three layers are used when a message passesthrough a device (e.g., an IP host device). An IP host is any device onthe network that is capable of transmitting and receiving IP packets,such as a server, a router or a workstation. Messages destined for someother host are not passed up to the upper layers but are forwarded tothe other host. In the OSI and other similar models, IP is in Layer-3,the network layer.

Wireless Networks

Wireless networks can incorporate a variety of types of mobile devices,such as, e.g., cellular and wireless telephones, PCs (personalcomputers), laptop computers, wearable computers, cordless phones,pagers, headsets, printers, PDAs, etc. For example, mobile devices mayinclude digital systems to secure fast wireless transmissions of voiceand/or data. Typical mobile devices include some or all of the followingcomponents: a transceiver (i.e., a transmitter and a receiver,including, e.g., a single chip transceiver with an integratedtransmitter, receiver and, if desired, other functions); an antenna; aprocessor; one or more audio transducers (for example, a speaker or amicrophone as in devices for audio communications); electromagnetic datastorage (such as, e.g., ROM, RAM, digital data storage, etc., such as indevices where data processing is provided); memory; flash memory; a fullchip set or integrated circuit; interfaces (such as, e.g., USB, CODEC,UART, PCM, etc.); and/or the like.

Wireless LANs (WLANs) in which a mobile user can connect to a local areanetwork (LAN) through a wireless connection may be employed for wirelesscommunications. Wireless communications can include, e.g.,communications that propagate via electromagnetic waves, such as light,infrared, radio, microwave. There are a variety of WLAN standards thatcurrently exist, such as, e.g., Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11, and HomeRF.

By way of example, Bluetooth products may be used to provide linksbetween mobile computers, mobile phones, portable handheld devices,personal digital assistants (PDAs), and other mobile devices andconnectivity to the Internet. Bluetooth is a computing andtelecommunications industry specification that details how mobiledevices can easily interconnect with each other and with non-mobiledevices using a short-range wireless connection. Bluetooth creates adigital wireless protocol to address end-user problems arising from theproliferation of various mobile devices that need to keep datasynchronized and consistent from one device to another, thereby allowingequipment from different vendors to work seamlessly together. Bluetoothdevices may be named according to a common naming concept. For example,a Bluetooth device may possess a Bluetooth Device Name (BDN) or a nameassociated with a unique Bluetooth Device Address (BDA). Bluetoothdevices may also participate in an Internet Protocol (IP) network. If aBluetooth device functions on an IP network, it may be provided with anIP address and an IP (network) name. Thus, a Bluetooth Device configuredto participate on an IP network may contain, e.g., a BDN, a BDA, an IPaddress and an IP name. The term “IP name” refers to a namecorresponding to an IP address of an interface.

An IEEE standard, IEEE 802.11, specifies technologies for wireless LANsand devices. Using 802.11, wireless networking may be accomplished witheach single base station supporting several devices. In some examples,devices may come pre-equipped with wireless hardware or a user mayinstall a separate piece of hardware, such as a card, that may includean antenna. By way of example, devices used in 802.11 typically includethree notable elements, whether or not the device is an access point(AP), a mobile station (STA), a bridge, a PCMCIA card or another device:a radio transceiver; an antenna; and a MAC (Media Access Control) layerthat controls packet flow between points in a network.

In addition, Multiple Interface Devices (MIDs) may be utilized in somewireless networks. MIDs may contain two independent network interfaces,such as a Bluetooth interface and an 802.11 interface, thus allowing theMID to participate on two separate networks as well as to interface withBluetooth devices. The MID may have an IP address and a common IP(network) name associated with the IP address.

Wireless network devices may include, but are not limited to Bluetoothdevices, Multiple Interface Devices (MIDs), 802.11x devices (IEEE 802.11devices including, e.g., 802.11a, 802.11b and 802.11g devices), HomeRF(Home Radio Frequency) devices, Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) devices, GPRS(General Packet Radio Service) devices, 3G cellular devices, 2.5Gcellular devices, GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) devices,EDGE (Enhanced Data for GSM Evolution) devices, TDMA type (Time DivisionMultiple Access) devices, or CDMA type (Code Division Multiple Access)devices, including CDMA2000. Each network device may contain addressesof varying types including but not limited to an IP address, a BluetoothDevice Address, a Bluetooth Common Name, a Bluetooth IP address, aBluetooth IP Common Name, an 802.11 IP Address, an 802.11 IP commonName, or an IEEE MAC address.

Wireless networks can also involve methods and protocols found in, e.g.,Mobile IP (Internet Protocol) systems, in PCS systems, and in othermobile network systems. With respect to Mobile IP, this involves astandard communications protocol created by the Internet EngineeringTask Force (IETF). With Mobile IP, mobile device users can move acrossnetworks while maintaining their IP Address assigned once. See Requestfor Comments (RFC) 3344. NB: RFCs are formal documents of the InternetEngineering Task Force (IETF). Mobile IP enhances Internet Protocol (IP)and adds means to forward Internet traffic to mobile devices whenconnecting outside their home network. Mobile IP assigns each mobilenode a home address on its home network and a care-of-address (CoA) thatidentifies the current location of the device within a network and itssubnets. When a device is moved to a different network, it receives anew care-of address. A mobility agent on the home network can associateeach home address with its care-of address. The mobile node can send thehome agent a binding update each time it changes its care-of addressusing, e.g., Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP).

In basic IP routing (i.e. outside mobile IP), typically, routingmechanisms rely on the assumptions that each network node always has aconstant attachment point to, e.g., the Internet and that each node's IPaddress identifies the network link it is attached to. In this document,the terminology “node” includes a connection point, which can include,e.g., a redistribution point or an end point for data transmissions, andwhich can recognize, process and/or forward communications to othernodes. For example, Internet routers can look at, e.g., an IP addressprefix or the like identifying a device's network. Then, at a networklevel, routers can look at, e.g., a set of bits identifying a particularsubnet. Then, at a subnet level, routers can look at, e.g., a set ofbits identifying a particular device. With typical mobile IPcommunications, if a user disconnects a mobile device from, e.g., theInternet and tries to reconnect it at a new subnet, then the device hasto be reconfigured with a new IP address, a proper netmask and a defaultrouter. Otherwise, routing protocols would not be able to deliver thepackets properly.

Some Limitations of Existing Wireless Systems

This section sets forth certain knowledge of the present inventors, anddoes not necessarily represent knowledge in the art.

Wireless networks, and, in particular Wireless Local Area Networks(WLANs), such as, e.g., IEEE 802.11 based WLANs have been experiencing aremarkable growth and usage increases. For example, 802.11b or Wi-Fisystems can be seen in offices, residences and hot spots, ad hocnetworking test beds, to name a few examples. Moreover, 802.11a and therelatively new 802.11g standards provide higher data rates (e.g., up to54 Mb/s) than 802.11b (e.g., up to 11 Mb/s). Additionally, with theshrinking costs of WLAN chipsets, it is becoming easier for notebookcomputer vendors to provide WLAN devices that are compatible with allthese three standards under 802.11.

Accordingly, investigating performance enhancements to these and otherdifferent WLAN systems is of increasing value. One of the majordrawbacks of current WLAN systems is that all users time share thechannel; there is no inherent capability to maintain simultaneous datatransmissions. This is a consequence of all terminals associated with anAP sharing the same frequency, code and space. Moreover, the CSMA/CAprotocol used for medium access in 802.11 DCF (Distributed CoordinationFunction) has been designed to provide long term fairness to all usersin the sense that all users have the same probability of obtainingaccess to the medium, regardless of differences in their channel datarate. If the traffic being generated is identical for all users, theyall achieve substantially the same long term throughput as well. Hence,the achievable throughput is limited by users having the lowesttransmission rate.

The background work related hereto includes, inter alia, works thataddress the long term fairness of CSMA/CA protocol. See, e.g., thebelow-listed references [2, 6]. With reference to Heusse et. al.,reference [2], this reference considers an 802.11b WLAN and shows thatdifferent users with different data rates achieve the same long termthroughput that is significantly lower than what a high data rate usercould have obtained. For example, two UDP users each with 11 Mb/schannel obtain a throughput of approximately 3 Mb/s each. However, ifone user is at 1 Mb/s and the other at 11 Mb/s, they both obtain athroughput of 0.7 Mb/s. This phenomenon is also called throughput basedfairness of 802.11. See, e.g., the below-listed reference [6]. Withreference to Tan and Guttag, reference [6], this reference presents amethod based on time based fairness to provide equal channel time to allstations. Such equal time allocation to different users is akin to thatachieved by the Proportional Fair scheduling scheme proposed in theIS-856 3G cellular system. See, e.g., the below-listed reference [9].Allocating equal time to users has the result of users achievingthroughput proportional to their channel rate. In addition, theperformance analysis of 802.11 DCF by Bianchi, see reference [17],provides a useful analytical model that has been modified, Heusse et.al., to address infrastructure mode WLANs.

Additionally, the provision of multiple channels in the context ofcellular systems has been well studied. In that regard, the concept offrequency reuse is essentially synonymous with cellular systems. See,e.g., the below reference [11]. In addition, techniques such as dynamicchannel allocation, see reference [10], are well known. Moreover, theuse of multiple channels in the context of ad hoc networks has alsoreceived appreciable attention. There, the primary aspects studied inthe context of ad hoc networks include, e.g., connectivity andmaximizing spatial reuse. The connectivity aspects include, e.g.,routing and medium access control, and include the multiple-channelhidden terminal problem where by two neighboring nodes are agnostic toeach other's transmissions when they operate at different frequencies.The below-listed recent works by So and Vaidya, see reference [7], andby Raniwala et. al., see reference [18], help to summarize somebackground developments in multi-channel ad hoc networks.

While a variety of systems and methods are known, there remains a needfor improved systems and methods which overcome one or more of thefollowing and/or other limitations.

REFERENCES

-   [1] ITU Recommendation P.59, “Artificial Conversational Speech,”    March 1993-   [2] M. Heusse, F. Rousseau, G. Berger-Sabbatel, A. Duda,    “Performance Anomaly of 802.11b,” Proc. of INFOCOM 2003.-   [3] K. Medepalli, P. Gopalakrishnan, D. Famolari and T. Kodama,    “Voice Capacity of IEEE 802.11b, 802.11a and 802.11g WLAN Systems,”    To appear: Proc. of IEEE GLOBECOM 2004.-   [4] IEEE 802.11b specification, 1999, Available at:    http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11b1999.pdf-   [5] IEEE 802.11a specification, 1999, Available at:    http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11a-1999.pdf-   [6] G. Tan and J. Guttag, “Time-based Fairness Improves Performance    in Multi-rate WLANs,” Proc. of USENIX 2004.-   [7] J. So and N. Vaidya, “Multi-Channel MAC for Ad Hoc Networks:    Handling Multi-Channel Hidden Terminals Using A Single Transceiver,”    Proc. of ACM MobiHoc 2004.-   [8] L. Kleinrock and F. A. Tobagi, “Packet Switching in Radio    Channels: Part I—Carrier Sense Multiple Access and their    Throughput-Delay Characteristics,” IEEE Transactions on    Communications, Vol. 23, Issue: 13, December 1975, pp. 1417-1433.-   [9] P. Viswanath, D. Tse and R. Laroia, “Opportunistic beamforming    using dumb antennas,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol.    48(6), June 2002.-   [10] I. Katzela and M. Naghshineh, “Channel assignment schemes for    cellular mobile telecommunication systems: A comprehensive survey,”    IEEE Personal Comm., pp. 10-31, June 1996.-   [11] T. S. Rappaport, “Wireless Communications: Principles &    Practice,” Prentice Hall, 2002.-   [12] F. A. Tobagi and L. Kleinrock, “Packet Switching in Radio    Channels: Part II—the Hidden Terminal Problem in Carrier Sense    Multiple-Access and the Busy-Tone Solution,” IEEE Trans on Comm,    December 1975, pp. 1417-1433.-   [13] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, “Convex Optimization,” Cambridge    University Press, 2003.-   [14] A. Bykadorov, “On quasiconvexity in fractional    programming,”—In: “Generalized Convexity,” S. Komlosi, T.    Rapcsak, S. Schaible (Eds.)/Proceedings Pecs (Hungary), 1992:    Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, no. 405,    Springer-Verlag, Berlin—Heidelberg—New York, 1994, p. 281-293.-   [15] A. Caprara, H. Kellerer, U. Pferschy, “The Multiple subsets sum    problem,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 308-319,    2000.-   [16] C. Koksal et. al., “An analysis of short-term fairness in    wireless media access protocols,” in Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS,    2000.-   [17] G. Bianchi, “Performance analysis of the IEEE 802.11    Distributed Coordination Function,” JSAC Wireless Series, vol. 18,    no. 3, 2000.-   [18] A Raniwala., K. Gopalan and T. Chieuh, “Centralized Algorithms    for Multi-channel Wireless Mesh Networks,” ACM Mobile Computing and    Communications Review (MC2R), vol. 8, no. 2, April 2004.-   [19] IEEE 802.11g-2003, Available at    http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.11g-2003.pdf.

SUMMARY OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The preferred embodiments of the present invention can significantlyimprove upon existing methods and/or apparatuses.

According to some of the preferred embodiments, an additional dimensionof orthogonality can be used to potentially segregate users withstrongest channel conditions from those users with weakest channels,resulting in overall performance improvements.

In the preferred embodiments, a system is provided that establishesconcurrent use of multiple orthogonal channels as an advantageous methodfor providing the additional dimension of orthogonality.

Among other things, the preferred embodiments can achieve significantgains from using multiple channels. For example, as discussed below atSection IV, it can be seen that in a multi-channel WLAN with C channels,appropriate channel allocation can lead to an increase in aggregatethroughput that is more than C times the single channel throughput(e.g., super-linear gains are possible).

The IEEE 802.11b standard, see reference [4] above, specified 14channels operating in the 2.4 GHz frequency band with the channelnumbers 1, 6 and 11 being the three non-overlapping channels. In thecase of IEEE 802.11a, see reference [5] above, all of the 12 channelsdefined in the standard (i.e., 8 in the lower to middle U-NII band and 4in the upper U-NII bands) can be used in overlapping and/or adjacentcells. With respect to 802.11g, see reference [19] above, because it wasdesigned for the 2.4 GHz ISM band, it also has 3 non-overlappingchannels.

However, it should be noted that although present standards compliantWLANs do support such multiple channels, they use only one of themultiple channels in a static manner. In such cases, each WLAN AccessPoint (AP) operates on only one channel. In such cases, the choice ofthe channel to operate on depends on the deployment scenario. Forexample, residential users pay little attention, if any, towardsspecifying the channel to be used by their WLAN Access Point (AP). Thisis often actually the case in some businesses, offices, campuses, andother professional environments. In some more carefully planneddeployments, the channel to be used is determined by accounting forpropagation characteristics and the resulting mutual interferencebetween APs. Thus, such present day devices only need to employ a singleradio equipped with channel changing capability.

On the other hand, in the preferred embodiments of the present inventioneach AP is equipped with transceivers capable of simultaneouslytransmitting and receiving at multiple frequencies. However, theterminals still preferably use a single radio with the ability to changethe operating frequency in a dynamic manner.

In this disclosure, the problem of optimally assigning carriers (i.e.frequencies) in WLANs, while meeting the QoS requirements of all usersadmitted, is considered. Among other things, the present disclosurehelps to demonstrate the following notable concepts. First, it is shownthat the problem of optimal channel allocation can be formulated andsolved as a convex optimization problem. Second, it is demonstrated thata proposed heuristic algorithm based on pooling users with similarchannel conditions can be used as a means of approximating optimalpolicy. Third, the benefits of optimal channel allocation are quantifiedand it is demonstrated that the proposed heuristic algorithm can achievenear optimal performance in terms of minimizing the call blockingprobability. As seen below, the analyses and results not only addressthe major WLAN standards of IEEE 802.11b, 802.11a and 802.11g, but theyextend further, such as, e.g., considering the useful case of 802.11band 802.11g co-existence. Prior to the present invention, others had notappreciated the desirability of such a study addressing these sets ofproblems.

According to some embodiments of the invention, a system for improvingthe aggregate throughput of a wireless local area network is providedthat includes: at least one access point that is equipped with at leastone transceiver configured to simultaneously transmit and receive atmultiple frequencies using multiple channels; the access point beingconfigured to acquire channel conditions of users and to pool sets ofusers on the channels based on the channel conditions. In thisdisclosure, the language “at least one access point that is equippedwith at least one transceiver configured to simultaneously transmit andreceive at multiple frequencies using multiple channels” encompasses,among other things, situations in which an AP has one transceiver thatcan simultaneously transmit and receive and also situations in which anAP has two or more transceivers to simultaneously transmit and receive.In some embodiments, the at least one access point has a single radiothat is configured to dynamically change the operating frequency. Inpreferred embodiments, the access point is configured to assign users tochannels based upon a heuristic algorithm, and, preferably, based upon aPACK algorithm. In some embodiments, the system includes user terminalsconfigured for at least two different networking specifications, andwherein users for a first of the networking specifications are placed ona first channel and users for a second of the networking specificationsare placed on a second channel.

According to some other embodiments of the invention, a method forimproving performance of a wireless local area network is performed thatincludes: a) having an access point simultaneously transmit and receivecommunications on multiple channels; and b) segregating users accessingthe access point onto different ones of the channels based ondifferences in strengths of the users' channel conditions. In someembodiments, the method further includes having the access point changethe operating frequency in a dynamic manner using a single radio. Insome embodiments, the method further includes having the access pointpool sets of users based on channel quality.

According to some other embodiments of the invention, a system forimproving performance in wireless communications to an IP network isprovided that includes: at least one access point that is equipped withat least one transceiver configured to simultaneously transmit andreceive on multiple channels; wherein the access point is configured topool users onto the channels based channel conditions. In someembodiments, the at least one access point is configured to respond toassociation requests from user stations configured to send or receive ononly one of the channels at a given time, wherein the user stations areat differing locations and are capable of using different channel rates.In some embodiments, the access point is configured to enable voicetraffic and/or packet data traffic. In some preferred embodiments, theaccess point is configured to assign users to channels based on aheuristic algorithm.

In some examples, the access point is configured to separate users intoa number of classes of users having respective levels of throughput;when the users can be admitted, the access point is configured toallocate the users to the channels as follows: on each channel, theaccess point allocates as many users from a respective class aspossible, when the number of users in the respective class is less thanthe channel capacity for that class, there is no spill-over traffic ofcalls, and all the users in the respective class are allocated to thatchannel; when the number of users in a class is more than the channelcapacity for that class, there is spill-over traffic of calls, whichcalls are further assigned by the access point going through the classesin a step-wise manner starting at a higher throughput class so as topair spill-over traffic having a higher throughput with that having alower throughput.

In some embodiments, the access point is configured to separate usersinto a number of classes of users with different levels of throughput;if the access point cannot accommodate all users, then the access pointis configured to allocate users by going through user classes in astep-wise manner starting at a higher throughput first class, assigningas many of such users as possible, then moving onto a next class andthen to subsequent classes.

In some embodiments, wherein the access point is configured to handleasynchronous calls by admitting only users with similar channelconditions onto corresponding ones of the channels. Yet, in some otherembodiments, in circumstances in which the access point receivesexternal interference related to the presence of additional accesspoints, the access point is configured to gauge the utilization of eachof the channels and to establish a subset of the channels to be chosen.In some other embodiments, the access point is configured to maintain amoving window average of the channel load activity on each of thechannels.

The above and/or other aspects, features and/or advantages of variousembodiments will be further appreciated in view of the followingdescription in conjunction with the accompanying figures. Variousembodiments can include and/or exclude different aspects, featuresand/or advantages where applicable. In addition, various embodiments cancombine one or more aspect or feature of other embodiments whereapplicable. The descriptions of aspects, features and/or advantages ofparticular embodiments should not be construed as limiting otherembodiments or the claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The preferred embodiments of the present invention are shown by a way ofexample, and not limitation, in the accompanying figures, in which:

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram depicting conversational speech modeled asa four (4) state Markov Chain, p1=0.4, p2=p3=0.5;

FIG. 2 is a chart depicting illustrative gains that can be achieved byusing multiple channels;

FIG. 3 is a chart depicting an illustrative throughput comparison ofoptimal, serial and PACK strategies for 802.11b;

FIG. 4 is a chart depicting an illustrative comparison of blockingprobability for optimal, serial and PACK schemas for 802.11b;

FIG. 5 is a chart depicting an illustrative number of blocked users bytype in 802.11b for optimal and PACK;

FIG. 6 is a chart depicting an illustrative number of blocked users bytype in 802.11b for serial allocation;

FIG. 7 is a chart depicting an illustrative number of blocked calls bytype for an optimal scheme when a minimum fraction of calls to beadmitted in each class is set to one third (⅓);

FIG. 8 is a chart depicting an illustrative aggregate throughput acrossall channels in an eight (8) channel IEEE 802.11a system;

FIG. 9 is a chart depicting an illustrative blocking probability as afunction of loading in an 8 channel 802.11a system;

FIG. 10 is a table depicting an illustrative summary of notableconstants in 802.11b, 802.11a and 802.11g;

FIG. 11(A) is an architectural diagram showing a plurality of stationscommunicating wirelessly via an access point that is connected to awired network as an illustrative and non-limiting example; and

FIG. 11(B) is an architectural diagram showing access point having atransceiver communicating over a plurality of channels according to someillustrative embodiments.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

While the present invention may be embodied in many different forms, anumber of illustrative embodiments are described herein with theunderstanding that the present disclosure is to be considered asproviding examples of the principles of the invention and that suchexamples are not intended to limit the invention to preferredembodiments described herein and/or illustrated herein.

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

As wireless LANs gain increasing popularity, it has become important tounderstand their performance under different application scenarios andto investigate the various means by which their performance can beimproved. The present inventors have determined that one of thepotential performance enhancing features is the concurrent use ofmultiple orthogonal channels. Nevertheless, in contrast to singlechannel WLANs, WLANs supporting multiple channels and multiple classesof user traffic (such as, e.g. voice, data, etc.), face the problem ofresource (e.g., channel) allocation.

In the preferred embodiments, the problem of optimally assigningincoming calls to one of the channels while maintaining the QoSrequirements of individual calls can be cast as a constrainedoptimization problem. In preferred embodiments, minimizing the callblocking probability and maximizing aggregate system throughput are twoobjective functions of interest.

Preferably, an easy heuristic algorithm (referred to herein as PACK)which groups users with similar channel gains and trafficcharacteristics onto the same channel is employed. Notably, this canachieve near optimal performance for each of the three major WLANsystems: IEEE 802.11b; 802.11a; and 802.11g. For the case of differentvoice users with different channel conditions, a 60% increase inthroughput can be achieved for the 802.11b system. In addition, asdemonstrated below, an increase in call blocking probability by as muchas 75% can be incurred if such pooling is not performed. As furtherdemonstrated below, grouping users can yield cascaded benefits for,e.g., cases where 802.11g terminals co-exist with 802.11b terminals. Insuch cases, 802.11g terminals can be placed on channels different fromthose used by 802.11b terminals. Among other things, this can, thus,allow implementers to do away with throughput reducing protectionschemes such as CTS-to-self and RTS-CTS. As further demonstrated below,the optimal scheme can be implemented in a distributed and adaptivemanner when more than a single AP is deployed in a geographical area.

In the sections, further details regarding the preferred embodiments areset forth. Then, an analytical framework for capacity analysis on singleAP using single channel is introduced. Then, motivation for the use ofconcurrent channels is provided and the framework is extended toformulate the problem of channel allocation in an AP using multiplechannels. And then, channel allocation in the case when multiple APsshare a geographical area is addressed and numerical results areprovided quantifying the performance of channel assignment strategies.

2. ILLUSTRATIVE SYSTEM MODEL

With reference to FIGS. 11(A) and 11(B), in some illustrative andnon-limiting examples, an infrastructure based on, e.g., a 802.11 WLANwhere at least one AP has access to C orthogonal frequency carriers. TheAP is assumed to be equipped with a full-duplex transceiver TR—i.e., ithas the capability of simultaneously transmitting and receiving on eachof the C channels, as depicted in FIG. 11(B), at the same time. On eachchannel, the AP performs normal 802.11 operations such as sendingbeacons, responding to association messages from stations, etc. Thestations S1-S4 are assumed to be similar to existing half-duplex 802.11devices, whereby they can send or receive on only one of the C channelsat any given time. Users within an 802.11 Basic Service Set (BSS), e.g.,within the cell, are generally assumed to be at different distances fromthe AP. Thus, different users may be using different channel rates.

In various embodiments, users can be running any appropriate applicationon the WLAN. However, the AP is preferably assumed to be aware of theapplication traffic description. Using this information, the AP canestimate the resources needed for the i-th user, λ_(i), and uses it todetermine whether or not to admit a user, and if it admits the user,onto which channel the user should be admitted. Although someembodiments may include multiple interfering APs, as discussed below, inmany embodiments, and as described in more detail herein, a stand-aloneAP supporting multiple channels and, e.g., voice over WLAN is employed.In case of voice traffic, in some illustrative embodiments as shown inFIG. 11(A), the stations are assumed to be in conversation with, e.g.,nodes N1, N2, etc., in a wired network.

a. Voice Traffic Model

We use the ITU recommendation for generating conversational speech, asspecified in recommendation P.59. See, e.g., reference [1] above. Thevoice codec used is the G.711 codec which generates voice packets at arate of 64 Kb/s. We assume there are zero delays incurred in the wiredpart of the system and ignore all propagation delays. A notable featureof the P.59 recommendation is that it models the conversation betweentwo users A and B as a four state Markov chain (of the Markovprobability analysis technique) with states being: (a) A talking, Bsilent, (b) A silent, B talking, (c) both talking, (d) both silent. Thisis depicted in FIG. 1. In some examples, the durations of states aremutually independent and identically distributed exponential randomvariables with means 854 ms, 854 ms, 226 ms and 456 ms, respectively. Indemonstrative studies by the present inventors, it was assumed thatvoice packets are generated only when a user is in the talking state.That is, a simplified assumption of silence suppression was rendered inwhich no voice packets are generated when a user is silent.

In FIG. 1, conversational speech is modeled as a 4 state Markov Chain,wherein p1=0.4, p2=p3=0.5.

b. Protocol Layers and Headers

In an example considering a codec packetization interval of 10 ms, theraw voice packet is 80 bytes. In such cases, the headers are composed of28 bytes for MAC, 20 bytes for UDP, 8 bytes for IP and 12 bytes for RTP.In some examples, no other header is added to increase the packet size;however, a physical layer header (192 μs for 802.11b, 20 μs for 802.11aand an additional 6 μs for 802.11g) is incurred for every packettransmission.

c. MAC Layer Description

The 802.11 MAC specification defines two modes for medium access: thecentrally coordinated PCF (Point Coordination Function) and thedistributed access scheme DCF. Unlike DCF, the PCF mode is specified asan option by the standard. Moreover, it is seldom implemented incommercially available WLAN devices because of the additional complexityinvolved in AP controlling channel access. The DCF on the other hand isgoverned by a “listen-before-talk” protocol, essentially known as CSMA(Carrier Sense Multiple Access). See, e.g., reference [8] above. In suchcases, every station that needs to send a packet first senses thechannel for at least a duration of DIFS (Distributed Inter FrameSpacing). If the channel is sensed idle, the station chooses a randomback-off counter value uniformly distributed in the range of [0, CW],where CW stands for contention window. The contention window ismaintained in units of SLOT and is initially set to CWmin. Once theback-off counter value is chosen, it is decremented by one for each slotthe channel is sensed idle. If the channel is sensed busy before thecounter reaches zero, the decrementing process is frozen and is resumedonly when the channel is sensed idle for a DIFS period again. Aftertransmission, the sender expects to receive an acknowledgement (ACK)within a SIFS (Short Inter Frame Spacing) period. If an ACK is notreceived, the packet is assumed to be lost. Each time a packet is lost(such as, e.g., either due to collision or to channel errors), thecontention window is doubled until the maximum value of CWmax isreached. In addition, before the next packet is sent, the channel issensed for a duration of EIFS (Extended Interframe Spacing) and notDIFS. The station makes limited attempts to retransmit a packet, asspecified by the RETRY_LIMIT parameter. Upon successful transmission ofa packet, the CW is reset to CWmin.

It is possible that two stations that are not within transmission rangeof each other can cause collisions at neighboring nodes due to the wellknown hidden terminal problem. See, e.g., reference [12] above. Thestandard specifies RTS (Request-To-Send) and CTS (Clear-To-Send) messageexchanges to reduce these occurrences. To simplify analyses, it can beassumed all stations are within radio range of each other and, hence,one can dispense with RTS/CTS cycles as appropriate.

FIG. 10 depicts a table, labeled Table 1, that summarizes notableconstants related to the IEEE 802.11b, 802.11a and 802.11g systems. Asfor the 802.11g system, the following points are noted. While 802.11goperates in the same 2.4 GHz band as 802.11b, the 802.11b terminalscannot decode the OFDM modulated high rate 802.11g transmissions; hence,there can be an increased number of collisions. Here, the 802.11gstandard specifies two mechanisms to minimize the cross-talk betweenhigh rate 802.11g users and low rate 802.11b users. These mechanisms areinitiated as soon as a legacy 802.11b user registers with an 802.11gaccess point. The last column in the table shown in FIG. 10 reflects thechanges induced in the several system variables. The first effect oflegacy terminals is to increase the SLOT duration from 9 μs to 20 μs.The second effect is to introduce additional message exchange cycles atthe MAC layer which promote peaceful co-existence between 802.11g and802.11b users. In the following paragraphs, the two protection methodsused at the MAC layer are described:

CTS-to-Self: In this scheme, after the usual sensing time of DIFS andthe random back-off time, the sender transmits a CTS message (with itsown address) to inform all of the neighboring 802.11b nodes of anupcoming packet transmission. Following the CTS message, the senderwaits for a SIFS duration and then transmits the payload packet andexpects an ACK within the SIFS time as usual.

RTS-CTS Exchange: If 802.11g terminals experience significant packetloss in spite of using the CTS-to-self procedure, they have the optionof using the full RTS-CTS exchange cycle. Here again, after the initialchannel sensing and random back-off, the station sends an RTS messageand expects the CTS after a SIFS duration. Once the CTS packet isreceived, the payload packet is sent after a SIFS duration. This RTS/CTSexchange is the standard RTS/CTS exchange.

In both of these schemes, the CTS and RTS messages must be sent at arate understood by all terminals. Thus, 11 Mb/s is the maximum rate forthese packets. In addition, a long PLCP header needs to be used.Accordingly, the complete RTS/CTS cycle reduces the capacity of the802.11g system beyond the CTS-to-Self cycle. It is noteworthy that onceeither mechanism is completed, the 802.11g terminals use almost the same54 Mb/s OFDM physical layer as 802.11a terminals, except that there is alonger SLOT duration of 20 μs.

d. Physical Layer Model

The supported data rates are a function of the standard of interest.Accordingly, such are merely parameters in the inventor's studies. Thequantitative results set forth below are for a highest physical ratesupported. In that regard, IEEE 802.11b physical layer supports 1, 2,5.5 and 11 Mb/s, all four of which are mandatory. In addition, IEEE802.11a has an OFDM based physical layer and supports 6, 9, 12, 18, 24,36, 48 and 54 Mb/s, of which 6, 12 and 24 Mb/s are mandatory. Moreover,IEEE 802.11g physical layer supports data rates of both 802.11b and802.11a, of which the mandatory rates are 1, 2, 5.5, 11, 6, 12 and 24Mb/s.

In the analyses below, it was assumed for simplicity that the devicesare stationary and that the channel introduces no errors. However,packets can still be lost due to collisions. Moreover, it was alsoassumed for simplicity that all users inside a BSS are within range ofeach other and the AP.

3. SINGLE ACCESS POINT WITH A SINGLE CHANNEL

This section highlights, inter alia, how the throughput of a singlecarrier WLAN can be calculated. For illustration purposes, consider thatthe total number of voice and data users requesting service be V and D,respectively. We group the V voice users into M subgroups where all ofthe voice calls within a subgroup have substantially the same channelquality and vocoder profile. Preferably, the vocoder profile indicatesthe vocoder type (such as, e.g., G.711, G.723, etc.) and thepacketization interval (such as, e.g., 10 ms, 20 ms, etc.). Thisinformation can readily be obtained by the AP by, e.g., parsing SIP(Session Initiation Protocol) signaling messages during the initiationof a voice call. Similarly, we can group the data users into N subgroupswhere all the data calls within a subgroup have the same channelquality. Note that in general, data calls are deemed as best effort soit is unlikely that data calls specify a traffic profile (such as, e.g.,minimum data rate, maximum data rate, packet size; etc.). If such aprofile is indeed specified, the subgroups are formed in such a way thattraffic profiles are accounted for. The net effect of such subgroupdivision is that all users within a subgroup have substantially the samepacket transmission time. Let us denote the average effective packettransmission time of the voice user in the i-th voice subgroup as T_(i)^(V) and that of the data user in the i-th data subgroup as T_(i) ^(D).The effective transmission time here includes the actual transmissiontime of the user data plus the overhead time. Based on the descriptionof 802.11 DCF above, the effective transmission time {right arrow over(T)} can be computed using the effective time after n retransmissions,T_(n) as:

$T_{n} = {{( {n + 1} )T_{0}} + {\{ {\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{n}{\min \{ {{2^{k}{CWmin}},{CWmax}} \}}} \} \times \frac{SLOT}{2}} + {n( {{EIFS} - {DIFS} - {{CWmin} \times \frac{SLOT}{2}}} )}}$$\mspace{20mu} {T_{0} = {T_{P} + T_{Layers} + {DIFS} + {{SLOT} \times \frac{CWmin}{2}} + {SIFS} + T_{ACK}}}$$T_{0} = {T_{P} + T_{Layers} + {DIFS} + {{SLOT} \times \frac{CWmin}{2}} + \frac{8 \times {CTS}}{R} + T_{PHY} + {2 \times {SIFS}} + T_{ACK}}$$T_{0} = {T_{P} + T_{Layers} + {DIFS} + {{SLOT} \times \frac{CWmin}{2}} + \frac{8 \times ( {{RTS} + {CTS}} )}{R} + {2 \times T_{PHY}} + {3 \times {SIFS}} + T_{ACK}}$$\mspace{20mu} {\overset{\_}{T} = {\frac{1}{\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{N_{\max}}{P_{col}^{n}( {1 - P_{col}} )}}{\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{N_{\max}}{T_{n} \times {P_{col}^{n}( {1 - P_{col}} )}}}}}$

The foregoing three different equations for T₀ are for (i) 802.11b,802.11a and 802.11g only, (ii) 802.11g with CTS-to-self, and (iii)802.11g with RTS-CTS, respectively. P_(col) is the collisionprobability, taken to be independent from transmission to transmission,and is approximated to be 1/32 for 802.11b and 1/16 for 802.11a and802.11g. N_(max) is the maximum number of retransmissions. T_(P) is thetime required to transmit the raw voice packet. T_(Layers) is the timetaken for transmitting the RTP/UDP/IP/MAC/PHY header. T_(ACK) is thetime taken for transmitting the acknowledgement (ACK). And, D is thecodec packetization interval in seconds. T_(i) ^(V) and T_(i) ^(D) arealso computed using the expressions above, with the exception that theaverage data packet size is used for T_(i) ^(D) while the voice packetsize is used for computing T_(i) ^(V). Now, since 802.11 DCF providesequal long term channel access probability for all contending nodes, thetotal cycle time for the above system can be given as (note: each nodetransmits one packet in during this cycle):

$T = {{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{a_{i}T_{i}^{V}}} + {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{p_{i}T_{i}^{D}}}}$

where a_(i) and p_(i) are the number of voice and data users in the i-thvoice and data subgroups, respectively. If the user data packet size isB_(i) ^(V) and B_(i) ^(D) for the i-th voice and data subgroups,respectively, the corresponding throughput can be given as

${\frac{B_{i}^{V}}{T}\mspace{14mu} {and}\mspace{14mu} \frac{B_{i}^{D}}{T}},$

respectively. Thus, the total aggregate system throughput on the givencarrier can be given as:

$S = {\frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{a_{i}B_{i}^{V}}} + {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{p_{i}B_{i}^{D}}}}{T} = \frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{a_{i}B_{i}^{V}}} + {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{p_{i}B_{i}^{D}}}}{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{a_{i}T_{i}^{V}}} + {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{p_{i}T_{i}^{D}}}}}$

Notably, in deriving the above, the long term throughput was focused on.Over short time scales (e.g. hundreds of milliseconds), 802.11 MAC isknown to exhibit unfairness in that different users can achievedifferent throughput. See, e.g., reference [15] above. The notion ofresources consumed by a call (λ) will be the metric used in admissioncontrol. Essentially, it indicates the fraction of time, the WLAN systemis “dedicated” to a user. It was originally computed in the above-notedreference [3] where it was also shown to successfully predict the voicecapacity of WLANs. In those analyses, a fundamental idea involvedconditioning on each of the 4 states of the Markov chain and computingthe state dependent effective transmission time. Roughly speaking, theproduct of number of packets generated per second and the time neededper packet gives λ. Based on that approach, the net resources consumedby voice and data calls can be identified as

${\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{a_{i}\lambda_{i}^{V}\mspace{14mu} {and}\mspace{14mu} {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{p_{i}\lambda_{i}^{D}}}}},$

respectively. Thus, residual resources can be given as

$1 - {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{a_{i}\lambda_{i}^{V}}} - {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{p_{i}\lambda_{i}^{D}}}$

and an incoming call with resource need of μ is admitted if

${\mu + {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{a_{i}\lambda_{i}^{V}}} + {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{p_{i}\lambda_{i}^{D}}}} \leq 1.$

Again, as indicated above, extension of this approach to include othertraffic types is quite straightforward given, e.g., that an AP hasreasonable knowledge of traffic characteristics.

4. SINGLE ACCESS POINT WITH MULTIPLE CHANNELS

In this section, we consider a single AP equipped with C carriers at itsdisposal. For illustration purposes, consider that users can either bevoice users or packet data users. When a user requests access to achannel, the AP decides which channel to allocate to the user, shouldthe user be admitted. For simplicity, let us first consider the problemof optimally assigning V voice calls and D data calls to the C carriers.It is obvious that such a problem is considered only for simplicity andnot for modeling reality. In reality, calls usually come and leave in anasynchronous manner. Thus, the AP does not have the ability to assignchannels to the users in one step. We describe later, how this approachof solving for the channel assignment with the knowledge of all userscan help facilitate the solving of the channel assignment problem whencalls arrive and depart asynchronously. In the following section,advantages of using multiple channels can be easily appreciated by thepossibility of super-linear gains, such as, e.g., discussed below.

a. Gains from Using Multiple Channels

In order to appreciate the gains from using multiple channels, one mayconsider, by way of example, a simple WLAN system consisting of 3 users.Consider that all 3 of the users are sending data to the wired networkusing UDP and a packet size of 1500 Bytes. Let us further assume thatthe channel data rate of the first user is 11 Mb/s, of the second useris 5.5 Mb/s and of the third user is 1 Mb/s. Following the analysis inprevious section, the average time needed for successfully transmittingone UDP packet is about 1.99 ms, 3.17 ms and 13.9 ms. In a singlechannel system, the three users time share, resulting in a throughput of

$\frac{1500 \times 8}{1.99 + 3.17 + 13.9} \approx {1.9\mspace{14mu} {Mb}\text{/}{s.}}$

In a 3 channel system, each of these users can be placed on one channeleach to achieve a throughput of 10.7 Mb/s. When there are 2 channels,the combination achieving the highest throughput is user 1 on channel 1and the other two users on channel 2. The resulting throughput is 5.5Mb/s.

FIG. 2 demonstrates illustrative gains that may be available from usingmultiple channels. In particular, FIG. 2 shows an aggregate throughput(e.g., bars) scales super-linearly, clearly providing motivation for theusage of multiple channels. Note that there are no such gains possiblewhen all users are at the same data rate. However, in real-worldenvironments, WLAN users experience different channel conditions,resulting in different channel rates. In such cases, multiple channelscan provide significant improvements to system wide performance.

It should be noted that in the event that one considers this channelallocation for such 3 users to be uncomplicated, such should not beimproperly extrapolated to the general case, especially when oneconsiders other factors such as call blocking rate.

Accordingly, it should be apparent that this section, thus, providesfurther motivation for studies conducted by the present inventors.

b. Optimal Channel Allocation as a Linear Program

Extending the description in the previous section, let us denote α_(ij)as the number of users in the i-th voice subgroup that are assigned tothe j-th frequency carrier. Similarly, β_(ij) is the number of users inthe i-th data subgroup that are assigned to the j-th frequency carrier.Following these definitions, we see that when all calls are admitted,then

${{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{C}\alpha_{ij}} = a_{i}},{{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{C}\beta_{ij}} = b_{i}},{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{C}\alpha_{ij}}} = {{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}a_{i}} = V}}$${{and}\mspace{14mu} {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{C}\beta_{ij}}}} = {{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}b_{i}} = {D.}}$

The goal of our problem is to find the values of α_(ij) and β_(ij) suchthat maximum aggregate system throughput is achieved while meeting theQoS requirements of admitted users. Throughput on the j-th channel cannow be given as:

$S_{j} = \frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{\alpha_{ij}B_{ij}^{V}}} + {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{\beta_{ij}B_{ij}^{D}}}}{T_{j}}$

where, B_(ij) ^(V) (B_(ij) ^(D)) are the packet sizes of the users inthe i-th voice (data) subgroup and the j-th carrier. T_(j) is the totalcycle time on the j-th carrier and computed in a manner analogous to thesingle AP, single channel case. The aggregate throughput across all theC carriers is given as,

$S = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{C}{S_{i}.}}$

Regarding the QoS constraint imposed, we deem that the sum constraint onthe resource consumption being less than unity suffices to meet the QoSrequirements of the admitted calls. This inference has been verified tobe true in reference [3] above. Thus, the problem of assigning users todifferent channels can be posed as the following optimization problem:

${{minimize}\text{:}\mspace{14mu} {\theta_{V}( {1 - {\frac{1}{V}{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}\alpha_{ij}}}}} )}} + {\theta_{D}( {1 - {\frac{1}{D}{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}\beta_{ij}}}}} )}$${{{{subject}\mspace{14mu} {to}\text{:}\mspace{14mu} {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{\alpha_{ij}\lambda_{ij}^{V}}}} + {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{\beta_{ij}\lambda_{ij}^{D}}}} \leq 1},\mspace{14mu} {j = 1},2,\ldots \mspace{14mu},C$${{w_{i}v_{i}} \leq {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{C}\alpha_{ij}} \leq v_{i}},\mspace{14mu} {i = 1},2,\ldots \mspace{14mu},M$${{u_{i}d_{i}} \leq {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{C}\beta_{ij}} \leq d_{i}},\mspace{14mu} {i = 1},2,\ldots \mspace{14mu},N$

In the above formulation, we have included the blocking probability inthe objective function. The blocking probabilities for the voice anddata calls are

${( {1 - {\frac{1}{V}{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}\alpha_{ij}}}}} )\mspace{14mu} {and}\mspace{14mu} ( {1 - {\frac{1}{V}{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{M}{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}\beta_{ij}}}}} )},$

respectively. The constants θ_(V) and θ_(D) are positive and can beconsidered as knobs for controlling the tradeoff between the voice anddata call blocking probability. Finally, the constants w_(i) and u_(i)are the minimum fraction of i-th class voice and data user classes to beadmitted, respectively. These constants can also be considered as knobsfor enforcing the priority and fairness among different classes, shouldit be necessary. It can now be observed that we have formulated theproblem of maximizing the number of admitted calls subject to QoS ofadmitted calls such that it can be formulated as a simple Linear Program(LP). However, since the optimization variables α_(ij) and β_(ij)integer valued, we need to solve an integer LP. Although LPs can besolved very efficiently using interior point methods, it is known thatsolving integer LPs on the other hand is very computationally intensive.See, e.g., reference [13] above. On the other hand, in the preferredembodiments, we employ a heuristic algorithm which is described ingreater detail below.

A close look at the problem formulation the present inventors havedeemed that an optimal solution would be along the lines of admittingmore users from groups with lower λ. This is a basis of our heuristicalgorithm PACK.

It is to be noted that we could have included maximizing the throughputas part of the objective function. However, we observe that theexpression for the throughput is the sum of linear-fractional functions.It is easy to see that each linear-fractional is maximized by settingall but one of α_(ij) or β_(ij) zero. Non-zero weight is given to onlyterm, the term corresponding to

$\max {\{ {\frac{B_{i}^{V}}{T_{i}^{V}},\frac{B_{i}^{D}}{T_{i}^{D}}} \}.}$

A linear-fractional function is quasi-linear because the sub-level andthe super-level sets are both convex (i.e., they are half-spaces). Thesum of linear-fractional functions, however, is not necessarily convex.It is, actually, not even guaranteed to be quasi-convex. See, e.g.,reference [14] above. We have experimented with the throughputmaximization objective and found the results to be highly erratic;indicative of maximizing a function that is not convex (or concave).Additional comments will be provided below about the blockingprobability and throughput objectives along with the presentation ofnumerical results.c. Description of Our Heuristic Algorithm (PACK)

There are, among other things, two noteworthy motivations for pursuing aheuristic algorithm. First, it may not always be possible for the AP torun an optimization routine in order to perform admission control andchannel assignment operations. Second, the optimization frameworkassumes that all calls arrive, more or less, at the same time and thenthat the AP needs to decide which call goes where. However, in reality,calls arrive and depart asynchronously. Thus, having a heuristicalgorithm in place can potentially help in addressing real worldsituations. For illustrative purposes, let us continue considering themodel used so far—i.e., where an AP needs to decide which user goes ontowhat channel. For example, consider N classes of users and N channels.Without loss of generality we assume that the classes are arranged inthe descending order of individual throughput—e.g.,

$\frac{B_{1}}{T_{1}^{V}} \leq \frac{B_{2}}{T_{2}^{V}} \leq \ldots \leq \frac{B_{N}}{T_{N}^{V}}$

when all users are voice users. If the AP determines that all the usersrequesting service can be admitted, then it proceeds as follows. On thei-th channel, it allocates as many users from the i-th class aspossible. When the number of users in each class is less than the singlechannel capacity for that class, there is no spill over traffic. In sucha case, segregating different user groups as done above is same asmaximizing the individual linear-fractional function in the throughputequation. When the number of users in some of the classes exceeds thesingle channel capacity corresponding to that class, some calls remainunassigned after this first phase of allocation. In such a case, the APgoes through the list of user classes in a sequential manner, startingfrom class 1. For example, if any un-assigned calls are found on channel1, they are paired with channel consisting of users with lowestthroughput (channel N). If channel N is occupied, then they are tried tobe paired with channel N-1, etc. Once all calls from channel 1 areassigned, it then proceeds to channel 2 calls and tries to pair themwith channels starting at N and decrementing all the way down to 1. Thebasic rationale behind this is that when all the users can be admitted,then the objective of interest becomes maximizing the throughput seen bythe admitted users. Pairing spill over users with high throughput withthose with low throughput is one method of making efficient use ofresources.

Now consider that the N channels cannot accommodate all the users fromall of the N classes. In this case, maximizing the number of admittedcalls becomes the objective of interest. In this case, we need toconsider the sorted list of user classes where the sorting is done inthe ascending order of resource consumption—i.e., λ₁≦λ₂≦ . . . ≦λ_(N).We start with user class 1 and assign as many of them as possible, andif all class 1 calls have been allocated, we move to class 2 calls, andso on. For example, if class 1 users pack all the N channels, users fromall other classes are blocked. However, no other scheme can admit anymore users. In the case when there is a constraint on minimum fractionof users to be admitted is non-zero, we can admit the minimum number ofusers (if feasible) in the segregation manner described above. Theremaining calls are admitted so as to maximize the number of admittedcalls. On a related note, one can consider channel allocation forminimizing blocking probability as being related to the multiple subsetsum problem. See, e.g., reference [15] above. In the multiple subsetproblem, there are balls with different weights, say g₁, g₂, . . . ,g_(N), and there are N bins all of which are of equal capacity. Theproblem is to maximize the weight of each of the bins without exceedingthe capacity of an individual bin. Solving this problem is known to beNP-hard. Thus, the PACK algorithm is an even more attractive solutiongiven its near optimal performance, as demonstrated in next section.

In case of asynchronous call arrivals and departures, the AP has muchless flexibility. In such cases, the AP can simply admit users with samechannel condition onto one channel. This is simple yet optimal when allusers have identical traffic profiles. The results we provide in thenumerical results can be considered to be for this case.

5. MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS WITH MULTIPLE CHANNELS

In the case of multiple access points, the methodology described for asingle AP can be applied with, e.g., the modification that all the Cchannels may not be available for use at each AP due to interferencebetween the APs. This is a very realistic scenario as APs are seldomdeployed by end users in an organized manner—e.g., by paying specialattention to inter-cell interference and frequency reuse. An importantdifference between frequency reuse in cellular systems and wireless LANsis that in cellular systems, an interfering user, more or less, has theeffect of raising the noise floor. In WLANs, however, if the interferingsignal is received at any level above the Carrier Sense Threshold, theuser infers the channel to be busy and hence refrains from transmission.Hence the WLAN user achieves zero rate during this period of timewhereas the cellular user might still be able to achieve a non-zerorate.

When multiple APs are deployed in a geographical area, we present asolution whereby each AP uses only a subset of the available channels atany given time. Since an AP will be equipped with multiple channels, itwill be performing carrier sense operations on each of the channels. Insome preferred embodiments, we propose to use those operations to gaugethe utilization of each of the channels.

For example, the AP can maintain a moving window average of the channelactivity on each of the C windows where the window length is taken to bea large value, such as, e.g., 10 million slots. This illustrativeexample corresponds to a time of about 3.3 minutes in the case of802.11b and about 1.5 minutes in the case of 802.11a. Generallyspeaking, tracking channel load for smaller windows of time may not beas useful because user arrivals and departures may occur at time scalesof minutes. Nevertheless, it should not be inferred that tracking thechannel load at smaller time scales (such as, e.g., even seconds) wouldnot necessarily provide any additional benefit. Mathematically, if werepresent ρ_(i) as the loading on channel i (i=1, 2, . . . , C), thenduring the nth slot,

${\rho_{i} = {{( {1 - \frac{1}{T}} )\rho_{i}} + \frac{10^{6}}{T}}},$

if the i-th channel is busy

${\rho_{i} = {( {1 - \frac{1}{T}} )\rho_{i}}},$

if the i-th channel is idle

In the above averaging, T is taken to the time constant of the IIRfilter used for averaging and is taken to be, e.g., 10⁷ (i.e., 10million). The initial value of C is taken to be zero for all of thechannels. In addition, a channel is said to be busy if the AP senses thechannel to be busy for that slot or if it transmits during that slot.After these updates are made, the AP needs to decide which one of the 3channels it needs to use, such as, for example, if it should use all 3of the channels, only 2 of the channels, 1 of the channels or none. Thealgorithm for such a decision making can proceed, e.g., as follows:

-   -   Initially, such as, e.g., when an AP is booted, it includes all        of the C channels in its usable channel set, Ψ. Any channel that        is a member of the usable channel set can be considered for        assigning to a user.    -   After the n-th slot,        -   If (ρ_(i)<Λ),            -   Add channel i to usable channel set, i.e., Ψ;        -   Else if (ρ_(i)>Γ and card (Ψ)>0),            -   Remove channel i from set Ψ.

Where, Λ and Γ are the admission and deletion thresholds (Λ<Γ) that are,e.g., primarily under the network operator's control and card (Ψ)represents the cardinality of set Ψ. Qualitatively, a small value of Λand Γ represents a case when, relatively, fewer channels are used, whilea larger values indicates greater numbers of channels in the usable set.

Thus, after each slot, each AP can have a precise knowledge of thechannels that it should be using. If the total number of channels to beused is C′, then the AP can perform the optimization described in theSection entitled “Single Access Point with a Single Channel” with Creplaced by C′. Some of the advantages of this approach can includethat:

-   -   The set of channels to be chosen can be decided by each AP in an        independent manner—e.g., the solution can be a highly        distributed one.    -   Each AP can perform optimal call admission control locally on a        set of channels it infers to be less loaded. Thus, this approach        promotes harmonious resource sharing among the multiple APs.

6. ILLUSTRATIVE NUMERICAL RESULTS

We now present numerical results to demonstrate the performance of ouroptimal channel allocation scheme in some illustrative examples.Because, e.g., the case of multiple APs involves essentially the onlyadditional feature of channel subset selection, analyzing the case of asingle AP and multiple channels is of more significant use, at leastinitially. All numerical results have been obtained for the case ofvoice only traffic—i.e., where D=0. This choice has been to account forthe condition that difference in physical data rates among users isgenerally the root of performance degradation in single channel WLANs.Thus, understanding those implications supersedes other objectives suchas, e.g., a mixture of applications.

a. Illustrative Results for IEEE 802.11b System

We first consider an 802.11b system. Accordingly, the number oforthogonal channels can be taken to be 3. The. parameter differentiatingthe users is the channel condition. In this exemplary study, we take 3user classes, those that have a channel data rate of 11 Mb/s, others at5.5 Mb/s and the rest at 1 Mb/s. To serve as a benchmark for a realworld system without such optimization, we use serial admission of usersonto the channels. In the following paragraphs, we will now describe theserial method in some further detail:

Serial Admission of Users (SA): This case is considered to representwhat an “ordinary” AP would do in the sense that it substantiallyperforms only admission control based on the resources needed for ancoming call and the resources remaining on a particular channel.Specifically, the procedure works, e.g., as follows: When a call requestarrives, the AP computes the resources needed for this call (μ) anddetermines if this user can be admitted onto channel 1. If the netresources consumed by users already admitted on channel 1, say, Σ₁, issuch that 1−Σ₁≦μ, then the user is admitted onto channel 1 and Σ₁ isupdated as Σ₁=Σ₁+μ. Otherwise, it checks channel 2. And, if it failsonce again, then it checks channel 3. If the user is not admitted to anyof the 3 channels, the call is taken to be blocked call.

From the above, it can be appreciated that the order of arrivals is ofimportance. For example, if a lot of 1 Mb/s users arrive into the systembefore anyone else, they can occupy most of the resources that thechannels can spare, thus blocking the higher rate users that arrivelater. For the same population size and user distribution (e.g., fornumbers of 11, 5.5 and 1 Mb/s users), the blocking probability can vary.Thus, in an illustrative simulation, we generate 10,000 random arrivalpatterns of users, for the same user distribution and compute theblocking probability as the average of 10,000 values. Similarly, wemeasure the throughput from each random arrival pattern of users andtake the average of 10,000 such values.

The optimal allocation policy can be obtained by solving the integer LPdescribed in Section 4 above using, e.g., a CPLEX optimization tool. Tocompare the performance of different assignment strategies, we haveconsidered different loading scenarios. For example, an illustrativescenario identified as [35 35 35] indicates that there are 35 users eachat data rates of 11 Mb/s, 5.5 Mb/s and 1 Mb/s. These users, totaling 105voice users, are requesting admission onto the 3 channels at AP'sdisposal. The λ values for these three classes of users came to 0.032,0.0392 and 0.104 for the ITU 4 state Markov model, G.711 codec and 30 mspacketization interval. With these values of λ, the capacity of eachclass of users (assuming, e.g., no other class of users is present)comes to 31, 25 and 9, respectively. Thus, on a single channel, e.g., 31simultaneous voice calls can be supported when the voice users have aphysical data rate of 11 Mb/s; or, e.g., 25 and 9 simultaneous calls canbe supported when the physical data rate is 5.5 Mb/s and 1 Mb/s,respectively.

If one considers serial admission of users for this loading scenario, wefind that on average, we can achieve a blocking probability as high as,e.g., about 51%. The corresponding throughput came to 6.4 Mb/s in theexemplary studies. Notably, although in such an example, there are 35users, the illustrative model assumes that each one of these users istalking with a node in the wired network. Thus, each wireless userpreferably corresponds to two data streams, one from wired to wirelessand the other from wireless to wired. This multiplication by 2 is takeninto consideration when calculating the throughput. By comparing thethroughput of SA to the optimal strategy we note that not only does SAhave about a 73% higher blocking probability, but it suffers athroughput penalty. The optimal scheme achieves lower blockingprobability while simultaneously achieving approximately 47% higherthroughput.

FIGS. 3 and 4 summarize these exemplary results. In particular, FIG. 3shows a throughput comparison of optimal, serial and PACK strategies for802.11b, and FIG. 4 shows a comparison of blocking probability foroptimal, serial and PACK schemes for 802.11b.

We initially note that the preferred PACK algorithm achieves throughputand blocking probability substantially akin to that obtained by theoptimal policy. FIG. 3 shows, e.g., the aggregate throughput over allthe three channels for the three loading scenarios of [30 30 30], [35 3535] and [40 40 40]. There, it can be seen that the throughput in all ofthe three cases is saturated to 6.4 Mb/s for the SA scheme. The reasonwhy the throughput has saturated without reducing is that even in the SAscheme, we are preferably performing admission control. No users areadmitted once the net resource consumption approaches unity.

Over these loading regimes, the throughput of the optimal scheme isapproximately 60% higher than SA scheme with randomized arrivals. Thenext metric of interest is the blocking probability, depicted in FIG. 4.Once again, the SA scheme achieves, e.g., as much as about 75% higherblocking probability than the optimal scheme. These results clearlydemonstrate, e.g., the value of pooling users based on channel quality,such as can be done by the PACK algorithm.

We now consider the number of blocked users by channel type. FIG. 5plots the number of blocked users as obtained by solving the integer LP.Specifically, FIG. 5 depicts a number calls blocked by type in802.11b—for Optimal and PACK. As depicted, users with a higher λ, whichin this case translates to lower channel data rates, are the ones thatare blocked the most. For all the three loading cases, PACK obtainedsubstantially identical channel assignment as optimal. Accordingly, itis demonstrated that a maximum number of calls can be admitted when wechoose users with best channel conditions.

In the case of SA, as shown in FIG. 6, because no disparity is showntowards different user classes, all classes experience the same numberof blocked calls. Specifically, FIG. 6 shows a number of blocked callsby type in 802.11b—for Serial Allocation. Further, the number of callsto be admitted remains substantially constant for a given channelcapacity. Thus, as the load increases, the number of blocked callsincreases by essentially the same amount. For example, each bar in FIG.6 increases by 5 when we go from [30 30 30] to [35 35 35]. Regardingthroughput versus blocking probability comparison, although one mightcontend that higher throughput for optimal and PACK is a consequence ofa higher number of users being admitted, the fact that a larger numberof users with better channel conditions are admitted achieves superiorperformance.

The foregoing results were based on the assumption that the minimumfraction of users admitted in any class is set to zero. This is a reasonwhy, e.g., the number of blocked calls is very high for the 1 Mb/susers. Toward that end, we can consider changing the constraint on theminimum fraction of users to be admitted (w_(i) in our formulation) to,e.g., ⅓ for all users. The resulting number of blocked calls by type forthe optimal policy is shown in FIG. 7. Specifically, FIG. 7 depicts anumber of blocked calls by type for an optimal scheme when the minimumfraction of calls to be admitted in each class is set to ⅓. Asdemonstrated, users other than 1 Mb/s get blocked as well. However, itis noted that the optimal policy only admits the minimum number of lowrate users and admits as many remaining high rate users as possible.Moreover, in contrast to the increasing aggregate throughput whenw_(i)=0, the throughput actually declined from 8.1 Mb/s to 8 Mb/s to 7.6Mb/s when loading changed from [30 30 30] to [35 35 35] to [40 40 40].This effect is can be explained by a greater fraction of users with lowdata rates being admitted into the system.

b. Illustrative Results for an IEEE 802.11a System

In this section, we now present illustrative results for an IEEE 802.11asystem. As mentioned before, the 802.11a standard allows us to have 12channels. Further, the number of data rates used is 8 in 802.11a, ascompared to 3 in 802.11b. As some examples, we provide results for thecase when only 8 of the 12 channels are used. The 8 different data ratessupported in the 802.11a system include 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 and 54Mb/s. The single channel voice capacities corresponding to those datarates are 51, 69, 81, 100, 113, 130, 142 and 145, respectively. Here, wecan define the following three loading scenarios for 802.11a.

Scenario A: In which the number of users for each data rate correspondsto the single channel capacity with that rate (e.g., the loading vectoris [51,69,81,100,113,130,142,145]).

Scenario B: In which the number of users for each data rate is equal to145.

Scenario C: In which the number of users for each data rate is equal to200.

The results for each of these scenarios are shown in FIGS. 8 and 9.Specifically, FIG. 8 depicts an aggregate throughput across all channelsin an 8 channel IEEE 802.11a system, and FIG. 9 depicts a blockingprobability as a function of loading in an 8 channel 802.11a system.

First, once again, it can be seen that the PACK algorithm achieves aperformance that is almost identical to that of the optimal. Inaddition, when loading is such that the number of users corresponding toa data rate is equal to the single channel capacity for that data rate(e.g., Scenario A), the order of arrivals does not necessarily matter.This means that SA, optimal and PACK can all achieve the sameperformance. This can be explained as follows. If one compares the ofadmission users onto channels as a bin packing problem, then for fixedbin and ball sizes (e.g., where different balls can be of differentsizes but where they all need to be small), one can pack the binsregardless of the order in which the balls are chosen, provided thetotal number of balls are do not exceed the total capacity of the bins.

Next, as we proceed to higher loading scenarios, we see that SA startsto suffer a throughput penalty while the optimal and PACK strategiesactually see an increase in throughput. A rationale for this drop can beappreciated by noting that the number of users with low channel ratesincreases from scenario A to B to C. Because the capacity of a channelis fixed, the probability of these low rate users (e.g., high resourceconsumers) arriving ahead of high rate users increases. Thus, a greaternumber of low rate users are admitted, blocking a higher number of highrate users. SA scheme admits all users uniformly, whereas optimalstrategy accepts greater fraction of users with better channelconditions. The same concept extends to the case when, e.g., 200 usersare taken from each data rate.

The number of users admitted in each data rate for each of the threescenarios was consistent with 802.11b results. It was demonstrated thatSA essentially blocks all users uniformly whereas optimal and PACK blockmost of the low data rate users. Notably, unlike in 802.11b, the PACKassignments for 802.11a were slightly different from optimal assignmentsresulting in blocking about a total of 3 to 4 users more than optimal.

c. Illustrative Results for IEEE 802.11g Co-Existing with IEEE 802.11b

As described above, an IEEE 802.11g system operates in the ISM band andshould be backward compatible with 802.11b devices. In the absence of802.11b terminals, 802.11g users can use the OFDM specification withoutusing any protection mechanisms. The performance and call carryingcapacity of an IEEE 802.11g only system is, hence, substantiallyidentical to that of an 802.11a system. Accordingly, the resultspresented herein for an 802.11a system apply substantially identicallyto an 802.11g only system. However, the situation is different when oneconsiders mixed 802.11b and 802.11g scenarios because, e.g., of the twoprotection schemes described above.

For illustration purposes, we consider the case where there is one groupof 802.11b users, all members of which are at 11 Mb/s and engaging invoice communication with a node on a wired network, and, in addition tothis group of 802.11b users, there are two groups of 802.11g users. Inthis example, the first group of 802.11g users consists of 145 users,all of which use CTS-to-Self protection mechanism. On the other hand,the second group consists of 145 users, all of which use RTS-CTS cycle.The number 145 is chosen in this example because it is the singlecarrier voice capacity of an 802.11g only system. Similarly, thirty one802.11b users correspond to the single user capacity with 11 Mb/s. The802.11g system with CTS-to-Self can support 57 voice calls, whereas itcan support only 41 calls when RTS-CTS protection is used. These numbersdirectly reflect that when 802.11b and 802.11g co-exist, the effectivetime needed for getting an 802.11g packet across increasessignificantly, especially for the RTS-CTS protection context. In thiscase, grouping users results in all of the 802.11b users being assignedto one channel, all of the 802.11g CTS-to-Self users being assigned tothe second channel, and all of the 802.11g-RTS-CTS users being assignedto the third channel. Now, since there is no 802.11b user in either ofthe second and third channels, the 802.11g users need not useCTS-to-Self or RTS-CTS procedures. Accordingly, we can support all ofthe 145 users in each of the channels. Since thirty one 802.11b userscan be supported by a single channel too, we find that grouping achievesa zero blocking probability. The corresponding throughput came to beapproximately 40 Mb/s.

If one were to use the SA strategy, the blocking probability would beseen to be close to about 60% while the throughput is just about 17Mb/s. This exercise shows how grouping users can cause cascaded effectsin terms of performance gains. The fact that 802.11b and 802.11g userscan be separated out based on their resource consumption, has led to theindirect gain of fully utilizing the high speed capabilities of the802.11g system.

7. ILLUSTRATIVE CALL SETUP ISSUES

We now describe two possible methods that can be used by the AP andmobile in order to admit a user onto the appropriate channel. The firstmethod does not require any standards support while the second methodassumes some changes can be made to 802.11 management messages.

Direct Association: The station measures the SNR (signal-to-noise ratio)on each of the C channels using the beacons transmitted by the AP. Itorders the channel numbers in the descending order of SNR. It transmitsan association message on the strongest channel (without indicating theother channel qualities or the traffic type/characteristics). If anassociation response is not received, it tries the next channel in theorder, and so on. The AP will send an association response uponreceiving an association request as long as the total resourceconsumption on the current channel is less than unity. The station willstart sending and/or receiving traffic if it was successfully admittedonto one of the C channels. At this stage, if the station is engaged ina voice call, the AP can parse the SIP signaling messages to getinformation such as codec type, interval size, etc. Similarly, for datatraffic it can determine the MSS (maximum segment size) used by TCP.Using these parameters, the AP can determine the resources consumed bythis call. In addition, preferably using the optimization approachesdescribed herein, it can determine the correct channel for this station.Upon deciding this, it will preferably either continue to keep the useron the current channel, or, de-associate the station from the currentchannel and send an Association Response only when this station sends anAssociation Request on the correct channel.

One potential drawback of this approach can be latency in call setup.The station may need to try each of the channels sequentially, at twotimes: a first time for the AP to obtain the traffic information and asecond time for being assigned to the correct channel, given that the APhas all the information it needs to optimally assign this user to achannel. In the case of 802.11b, since there are only 3 channels, thelatency may not be that high as compared with 802.11a which has 12channels. However, since the latency is in the call setup phase only, itmay be an attractive solution that can avoid imposing changes tostandard message formats.

Association Using a Measurement List: A station that needs systemresources can monitor the beacons on different channels by tuning intoeach of the C channels and selecting the AP corresponding to thestrongest received beacon. It can then send an Association Message tothe AP on that channel. The AP receives the Association Message and byusing the Signal Strength Measurement (for all the C channels) and thetraffic class (e.g., Voice, Data) sub-fields inside that message,determines whether to admit the user onto that channel or not. Notably,the 802.11 standard association messages would need to be modified tosupport such decision-making. In this regard, if the AP decides to admitthe user on the same channel, it will preferably say so in theAssociation Response message. If, however, the AP decides to admit theuser onto another channel, it will preferably indicate the correspondingchannel in the Association Response message.

BROAD SCOPE OF THE INVENTION

While illustrative embodiments of the invention have been describedherein, the present invention is not limited to the various preferredembodiments described herein, but includes any and all embodimentshaving equivalent elements, modifications, omissions, combinations(e.g., of aspects across various embodiments), adaptations and/oralterations as would be appreciated by those in the art based on thepresent disclosure. The limitations in the claims are to be interpretedbroadly based on the language employed in the claims and not limited toexamples described in the present specification or during theprosecution of the application, which examples are to be construed asnon-exclusive. For example, in the present disclosure, the term“preferably” is non-exclusive and means “preferably, but not limitedto.” In this disclosure and during the prosecution of this application,means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitations will only beemployed where for a specific claim limitation all of the followingconditions are present in that limitation: a) “means for” or “step for”is expressly recited; b) a corresponding function is expressly recited;and c) structure, material or acts that support that structure are notrecited. In this disclosure and during the prosecution of thisapplication, the terminology “present invention” or “invention” may beused as a reference to one or more aspect within the present disclosure.The language present invention or invention should not be improperlyinterpreted as an identification of criticality, should not beimproperly interpreted as applying across all aspects or embodiments(i.e., it should be understood that the present invention has a numberof aspects and embodiments), and should not be improperly interpreted aslimiting the scope of the application or claims. In this disclosure andduring the prosecution of this application, the terminology “embodiment”can be used to describe any aspect, feature, process or step, anycombination thereof, and/or any portion thereof, etc. In some examples,various embodiments may include overlapping features. In thisdisclosure, the following abbreviated terminology may be employed:“e.g.” which means “for example.”

1. A system for improving the aggregate throughput of a wireless localarea network, comprising: a) at least one access point that is equippedwith at least one transceiver configured to simultaneously transmit andreceive at multiple frequencies using multiple channels; b) said accesspoint being configured to acquire channel conditions of users and topool sets of users on said channels based on said channel conditions. 2.The system of claim 1, wherein said at least one access point has asingle radio that is configured to dynamically change the operatingfrequency.
 3. The system of claim 1, wherein said access point isconfigured to assign users to channels based upon a heuristic algorithm.4. The system of claim 1, wherein said access point is configured toassign users to channels based upon a PACK algorithm.
 5. The system ofclaim 1, wherein the system includes user terminals configured for atleast two different networking specifications, and wherein users for afirst of said networking specifications are placed on a first channeland users for a second of said networking specifications are placed on asecond channel.
 6. The system of claim 5, wherein said at least twonetworking specifications include IEEE 802.11g and IEEE 802.11bnetworking specifications.
 7. A method for improving performance of awireless local area network, comprising: a) having an access pointsimultaneously transmit and receive communications on multiple channels;and b) segregating users accessing said access point onto different onesof said channels based on differences in strengths of the users' channelconditions.
 8. The method of claim 7, further including having saidaccess point change the operating frequency in a dynamic manner using asingle radio.
 9. The method of claim 7, further including having saidaccess point pool sets of users based on channel quality.
 10. A systemfor improving performance in wireless communications to an IP network,comprising: a) at least one access point that is equipped with at leastone transceiver configured to simultaneously transmit and receive onmultiple channels; b) wherein said access point is configured to poolusers onto said channels based channel conditions.
 11. The system ofclaim 10, wherein said at least one access point is configured torespond to association requests from user stations configured to send orreceive on only one of said channels at a given time, wherein said userstations are at differing locations and are capable of using differentchannel rates.
 12. The system of claim 10, wherein said stations are inconversation with nodes in a wired network.
 13. The system of claim 10,wherein said access point is configured to enable voice traffic.
 14. Thesystem of claim 10, wherein said access point is configured to enablepacket data traffic.
 15. The system of claim 10, wherein said accesspoint is configured to assign users to channels based on a heuristicalgorithm.
 16. The system of claim 15, wherein: a) the access point isconfigured to separate users into a number of classes of users havingrespective levels of throughput; b) when the users can be admitted, theaccess point is configured to allocate said users to said channels asfollows: i) on each channel, the access point allocates as many usersfrom a respective class as possible, 1) when the number of users in saidrespective class is less than the channel capacity for that class, thereis no spill-over traffic of calls, and all said users in said respectiveclass are allocated to that channel; 2) when the number of users in aclass is more than the channel capacity for that class, there isspill-over traffic of calls, which calls are further assigned by theaccess point going through said classes in a step-wise manner startingat a higher throughput class so as to pair spill-over traffic having ahigher throughput with that having a lower throughput.
 17. The system ofclaim 15, wherein: a) the access point is configured to separate usersinto a number of classes of users with different levels of throughput;b) if the access point cannot accommodate all users, then the accesspoint is configured to allocate users by going through user classes in astep-wise manner starting at a higher throughput first class, assigningas many of such users as possible, then moving onto a next class andthen to subsequent classes.
 18. The system of claim 10, wherein saidaccess point is configured to handle asynchronous calls by admittingonly users with similar channel conditions onto corresponding ones ofsaid channels.
 19. The system of claim 10, wherein in circumstances inwhich said access point receives external interference related to thepresence of additional access points, said access point is configured togauge the utilization of each of the channels and to establish a subsetof said channels to be chosen.
 20. The system of claim 19, wherein saidaccess point is configured to maintain a moving window average of thechannel load activity on each of the channels.
 21. The system of claim10, wherein said at least one access point includes an access point thathas one transceiver that can simultaneously transmit and receive or twoor more transceivers to enable simultaneous transmitting and receiving.